• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AZ Shooting: Tree of Liberty watering?

Should elected officials fear for their lives with regard to legislative efforts?

  • Yes, absolutely

    Votes: 1 4.8%

  • No. Never.

    Votes: 13 61.9%

  • I'm on the fence... I'll explain.

    Votes: 2 9.5%

  • They should fear Chuck Norris.

    Votes: 5 23.8%
  • Total voters
    21
Ikari said:
Yup, at this point we still do have control, even if we don't wish to exercise it that much. The government is not at the stage where it would necessitate violence against it. That's not to say that I think Jefferson is wrong. I think what he said is a stern warning to us all. There could be a time when it is necessary, and if such time should ever be reached; then we need to understand that in order to preserve liberty, we would have to fight for it. But even in that situation, what this guy did was not going to help in that regards. It was too sloppy, too reckless, and involved too many citizens. If it were necessary to fight, you don't do it by running into a building and start shooting up the place. You have to be calculated and precise, target government officials, government authority, government buildings. It would have to be made clear that the People at large are not the targets, but rather it is the tyrannical government which is being targeted. But that's to say you'd be at the point where you are left with no other option, and we are not at that point.
Click to expand...

Do you think a mentally unbalanced person (not referring to the shooter in this case necessarily) would understand all those nuances? Or, would he maybe just hear the constant refrain that government is bad and must be stopped with our 2nd Amendment rights?
 
I believe what Jefferson meant, as well as what I believe, is that legislators must understand their role and the importance it has. Legislators many times are voting on issues that may substantially alter the lives of Americans and must have a healthy fear of the people in that they are not above their reach, nor operating in a vacuum. If legislators are voting to suspend the rights of those they have sworn to protect and serve, then they should fear an uprising. Yet, in general legislation, they should only fear the vote of the people, and realize that they are civil servants to the people.
 
Catawba said:
Do you think a mentally unbalanced person (not referring to the shooter in this case necessarily) would understand all those nuances? Or, would he maybe just hear the constant refrain that government is bad and must be stopped with our 2nd Amendment rights?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what a mentally imbalanced person would understand, I'm not mentally imbalanced. Are you saying we shouldn't stress the importance of our rights because a crazy person out there may misinterpret it?
 
Ikari said:
I'm not sure what a mentally imbalanced person would understand, I'm not mentally imbalanced. Are you saying we shouldn't stress the importance of our rights because a crazy person out there may misinterpret it?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I am saying we shouldn't threaten violence in stressing the importance of our rights because many (especially the mentally infirm) may take it literally without understanding that it is just rhetoric. There is a reason people don't yell out fire in a crowded building when there isn't one.

All I'm talking about is lowering the tone with all the 2nd Amendment bravado that has become so prevalent.
 
Catawba said:
No, not at all. I am saying we shouldn't threaten violence in stressing the importance of our rights because many (especially the mentally infirm) may take it literally without understanding that it is just rhetoric. There is a reason people don't yell out fire in a crowded building when there isn't one.

All I'm talking about is lowering the tone with all the 2nd Amendment bravado that has become so prevalent.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, it is literally true that if the government tried to take all (or some?) firearms away from its citizens, there would be violence.

That's not a bluff and/or rhetoric.
 
The Mark said:
As I understand it, it is literally true that if the government tried to take all (or some?) firearms away from its citizens, there would be violence.

That's not a bluff and/or rhetoric.
Click to expand...

My point has to do with the threats of violence against the federal government that has been so prevalent when there have been no federal proposals to take away guns during the same period.
 
Catawba said:
My point has to do with the threats of violence against the federal government that has been so prevalent when there have been no federal proposals to take away guns during the same period.
Click to expand...
Well, it wouldn't do to have anyone forget reality, so constant reminders of it are necessary.

Is statement of fact a threat?

Or are there specific, direct threats I haven't heard about?
 
E_Pluribus_Venom said:
A little something I encountered at another forum. This (IMO) looks like clear-cut advocacy for the events that took place recently in Arizona. Later on in the discussion, one of these posters even went so far as to quote Jefferson and his liberty/tyranny proclamation (regarding government).

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Anyone agree?
Click to expand...

I agree with Thomas Jefferson, but not the AZ shooter. 2 very different ideologies. You can't pin the actions of some mentally ill radical with a history on the founders.
 
The Mark said:
Well, it wouldn't do to have anyone forget reality, so constant reminders of it are necessary.

Is statement of fact a threat?

Or are there specific, direct threats I haven't heard about?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed the coverage of the tea party rallies. Do you remember hearing the statement by Joyce Kaufman, “If Ballots don’t work, Bullets will?"
Anna

Or these news items, "the murder of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. A staged lynching of a Congressman in Maryland, a mock tombstone with a Congressman's name on it in Texas, death threats to a member of Congress in North Carolina, weapons carried into town halls -- all from health care reform opponents."
VIDEO: Anti-Health Care Reformers Turn to Threats of Violence | RHRealityCheck.org

I don't think Jefferson meant, "if ballots don't work, bullets will."
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Perhaps you missed the coverage of the tea party rallies. Do you remember hearing the statement by Joyce Kaufman, “If Ballots don’t work, Bullets will?"
Anna

Or these news items, "the murder of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. A staged lynching of a Congressman in Maryland, a mock tombstone with a Congressman's name on it in Texas, death threats to a member of Congress in North Carolina, weapons carried into town halls -- all from health care reform opponents."
VIDEO: Anti-Health Care Reformers Turn to Threats of Violence | RHRealityCheck.org

I don't think Jefferson meant, "if ballots don't work, bullets will."
Click to expand...
Actually, since I don't watch TV at all, it's very probable that I DID miss the coverage of those stories...And, since I have only vague memories of some chance reference to a few of those events, I must have...

And, I must disagree - I think Jefferson meant precisely "if ballots don't work, bullets will". Albeit, he probably meant alot more ballot attempts before bullets than some people might be saying...
 
The Mark said:
Actually, since I don't watch TV at all, it's very probable that I DID miss the coverage of those stories...And, since I have only vague memories of some chance reference to a few of those events, I must have...

And, I must disagree - I think Jefferson meant precisely "if ballots don't work, bullets will". Albeit, he probably meant alot more ballot attempts before bullets than some people might be saying...
Click to expand...

My opinion is threatening violence every time a person doesn't like what their government does is an extreme contortion of Jeffersons's words.
 
Catawba said:
My opinion is threatening violence every time a person doesn't like what their government does is an extreme contortion of Jeffersons's words.
Click to expand...

I agree with your statement, but also disagree. Jefferson would surely not agree with the murder of legislators and the lunacy that occurred in Arizona. However, Jefferson was a great fan of the French Revolution, and defended it even in the face of the criticisms placed against it by the Federalists for the extreme viloence that the FR wrought. Jefferson even went so far as to say that revolution about every 50 years would be good for the country. So while many Americans like to view the Founders as demi-gods, these men certainly had their dark streaks. Though in the time of Jefferson, many feared a rise of Monarchy in the US, and thus may have lent context to his words. Hell, many in the US were calling for Washington to be crowned king!
 
tlmorg02 said:
I agree with your statement, but also disagree. Jefferson would surely not agree with the murder of legislators and the lunacy that occurred in Arizona. However, Jefferson was a great fan of the French Revolution, and defended it even in the face of the criticisms placed against it by the Federalists for the extreme viloence that the FR wrought. Jefferson even went so far as to say that revolution about every 50 years would be good for the country. So while many Americans like to view the Founders as demi-gods, these men certainly had their dark streaks. Though in the time of Jefferson, many feared a rise of Monarchy in the US, and thus may have lent context to his words. Hell, many in the US were calling for Washington to be crowned king!
Click to expand...

And I agree that if the US were facing the rise of a Monarchy, threats of overthrowing the government might be in order, but that is not what we have today.
 
spud_meister said:
Well what do you think he meant? 'cause I sort of get the impression he meant what he said.
Click to expand...

I know what Jefferson's opinion is, I can look it up myself. Don't need you to recite his as though it's yours. And frankly, when Jefferson said last resort (if he did) he meant it needs to happen, and well before it's too damn late. Now I don't believe that representatives should fear for their lives, or that the Tucson shooting was justified (it wasn't). But these Washington SOB's need to understand where the line is, and that they were elected by a populace that means business. They aren't kings, and shouldn't get anymore protection than the average American. Only the President and Vice President due to their low number and high level of responsibility.
 
Catawba said:
I don't think Jefferson meant, "if ballots don't work, bullets will."
Click to expand...

In a sense, yes he did. It's not to say every little thing that comes along that we don't like, we go and shoot someone. But what Jefferson is talking about is when the system breaks down and the government becomes unresponsive to the needs and rights of the People. Under than scenario, voting doesn't work and you need guns.
 
Ikari said:
In a sense, yes he did. It's not to say every little thing that comes along that we don't like, we go and shoot someone. But what Jefferson is talking about is when the system breaks down and the government becomes unresponsive to the needs and rights of the People. Under than scenario, voting doesn't work and you need guns.
Click to expand...

What, in your opinion, has occurred during the last several years that required the threat of violence against government representatives through 2nd Amendment remedies?
 
Catawba said:
What, in your opinion, has occurred during the last several years that required the threat of violence against government representatives through 2nd Amendment remedies?
Click to expand...

I don't think we are yet at the point which will necessitate the use of violence against the government.
 
I would agree with Ikari, we are not at the point where violence is necessary. So what would be the point where violence would be necessary?

Tyranny in my mind would be far far worse than something Congress could do on their own. Tyranny would have to show itself not only as laws and the forfeit of rights, liberty's and privileges but it would also mean enforcement of such things by changing the laws or illegally using police or the military. That would look very much like the Japanese interment camps during WWII but on a larger scale... or the classic cold-war KGB midnight raids where someone says something controversial and the next day they and their family are suddenly missing never to return.

The view of such violence wouldn't be one off assassination attempts but would look much more like an insurrection or a French underground of sabotage. In these days, those acts would be called "terrorism" by the tyrants.
 
Ikari said:
I don't think we are yet at the point which will necessitate the use of violence against the government.
Click to expand...

Thank you. That is my point. The threats of violence against the government have been unnecessary and people need to tone back their threat of 2nd Amendment remedies about things that can be settled through voting, the mechanism provided by our founders.
 
Catawba said:
Thank you. That is my point. The threats of violence against the government have been unnecessary and people need to tone back their threat of 2nd Amendment remedies about things that can be settled through voting, the mechanism provided by our founders.
Click to expand...

No, it's important to stress the necessities of not only guns, but of revolution against the government. The government needs reminders of who is in charge, we need reminders as to our duty and obligation to the Republic. Saying that we have the ultimate say, that we are the sovereigns, and that if government doesn't work right by us it is our right and duty to dispose of it and replace it with one which does is not unnecessary nor unwarranted. It's a reminder to all the players, the government and the People. We are freemen so long as we can maintain our freedom. The Republic can be strong and support our rights and liberties so long as we can keep it. But all government corrupts, and we have duty to protect against that too.

In my opinion, everyone should have firearms, everyone should be trained in their weapons, everyone should participate in militia activity of some sort.
 
Ikari said:
No, it's important to stress the necessities of not only guns, but of revolution against the government. The government needs reminders of who is in charge, we need reminders as to our duty and obligation to the Republic. Saying that we have the ultimate say, that we are the sovereigns, and that if government doesn't work right by us it is our right and duty to dispose of it and replace it with one which does is not unnecessary nor unwarranted. It's a reminder to all the players, the government and the People. We are freemen so long as we can maintain our freedom. The Republic can be strong and support our rights and liberties so long as we can keep it. But all government corrupts, and we have duty to protect against that too.

In my opinion, everyone should have firearms, everyone should be trained in their weapons, everyone should participate in militia activity of some sort.
Click to expand...

I have not challenged gun rights, and I have not challenged the need to stress our rights as citizens. What I have challenged was the "need" for threats of violence against the government when it is not necessary.
 
E_Pluribus_Venom said:
A little something I encountered at another forum. This (IMO) looks like clear-cut advocacy for the events that took place recently in Arizona. Later on in the discussion, one of these posters even went so far as to quote Jefferson and his liberty/tyranny proclamation (regarding government).

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Anyone agree?
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with Jefferson on this quote! But do I think we're at a point of tyranny in our government??? NO! I think if they went all out radical and limit everything in my life, then yes, I will go to war. But we are no where close to this being necessary. Force should only be used when reason has failed completely and the consequences of not using force is greater than the consequences of using it. Taking lives is not something that should ever be done lightly. And we all consider the shooter a mad-man because this level of violence was no where near justified for any political reason in the US right now.
 
Catawba said:
My opinion is threatening violence every time a person doesn't like what their government does is an extreme contortion of Jeffersons's words.
Click to expand...
As things currently stand, I agree.

We have not yet reached a point where violence against our government is a reasonable option.

But we have moved past the point where it wasn't even being considered by any except the most extreme.

Now, here we are discussing it on a political debate forum - methinks the fact that it even came up is an indication of the levels to which distrust and dislike towards the government have risen.
 
The Mark said:
As things currently stand, I agree.

We have not yet reached a point where violence against our government is a reasonable option.

But we have moved past the point where it wasn't even being considered by any except the most extreme.

Now, here we are discussing it on a political debate forum - methinks the fact that it even came up is an indication of the levels to which distrust and dislike towards the government have risen.
Click to expand...


And now we are having threats of violence against government representatives when all it takes is an election to change the government. We have the well armed and possibly mentally infirm oxen before the cart in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom